Feehan v. Hong-Suh Park

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Feehan v. Hong-Suh Park

248 A.D.2d 430, 668 N.Y.S.2d 946, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2323

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 9, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 430 (Feehan v. Hong-Suh Park) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Feehan v. Hong-Suh Park, 248 A.D.2d 430, 668 N.Y.S.2d 946, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2323 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff Shirley Feehan appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated January 23, 1997, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the defendants’ counterclaim.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the plaintiffs motion is granted, and the defendants’ counterclaim is dismissed.

It is undisputed that the defendants’ vehicle backed into the appellant’s vehicle which was parked in a parking lot. However, contrary to the defendants’ contention and the Supreme Court’s conclusion, we find that there is insufficient evidence in the record to raise an issue of fact whether the appellant was parked in an illegal location. Moreover, even if the appellant were parked in an illegal location, this merely would have furnished the condition for the occurrence of the accident. It would not have been one of its causes (see, Esposito v Rea, 243 AD2d 536; Dunlap v City of New York, 186 AD2d 782; Williams v Envelope Tr. Corp., 186 AD2d 797). Thus, the defendants’ counterclaim asserting that the appellant was contributorily negligent should have been dismissed.

Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff Shirley Feehan appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated January 23, 1997, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the defendants’ counterclaim.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the plaintiffs motion is granted, and the defendants’ counterclaim is dismissed.

It is undisputed that the defendants’ vehicle backed into the appellant’s vehicle which was parked in a parking lot. However, contrary to the defendants’ contention and the Supreme Court’s conclusion, we find that there is insufficient evidence in the record to raise an issue of fact whether the appellant was parked in an illegal location. Moreover, even if the appellant were parked in an illegal location, this merely would have furnished the condition for the occurrence of the accident. It would not have been one of its causes (see, Esposito v Rea, 243 AD2d 536; Dunlap v City of New York, 186 AD2d 782; Williams v Envelope Tr. Corp., 186 AD2d 797). Thus, the defendants’ counterclaim asserting that the appellant was contributorily negligent should have been dismissed.

Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 430, 668 N.Y.S.2d 946, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feehan-v-hong-suh-park-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack